George Vuicic

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination, harassment, and reprisal based on creed.

She also filed a union grievance based on the same factual matrix, which was referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

The applicant opposed the deferral, while the respondent agreed.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in both proceedings were identical, posing a substantial risk of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

The respondents requested an order during proceedings to redact a document containing the personal information of third parties from the applicant's written particulars.

The document listed the names, addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers of executive members of a federal riding association.

The Tribunal found that the document contained personal information that was not arguably relevant to the application, although the fact of the applicant's membership on the executive was relevant.

The Tribunal ordered the document redacted to protect the privacy interests of the non-parties.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the Ontario New Democratic Party and James Pratt.

The applicant alleged factual errors regarding the respondent and the Federal NDP, and raised new allegations not included in the original application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and make new allegations, failing to satisfy any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The plaintiff employee was temporarily laid off by the defendant employer.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment claiming constructive dismissal, arguing the employment contract did not permit temporary layoffs.

The employer argued the layoff complied with the Employment Standards Act.

The court held that a temporary layoff without express or implied contractual authority constitutes constructive dismissal, rejecting the argument that the ESA displaces the common law requirement.

The plaintiff was awarded statutory notice and severance pay.

However, the court capped common law damages at five months because the plaintiff failed to mitigate by refusing a recall to work, and these damages were fully offset by statutory payments and new employment income.

The plaintiff sought enhanced costs following a successful summary judgment motion, after the Court of Appeal remitted the costs issue back to the motion judge to consider the effect of offers to settle.

The plaintiff had made a Rule 49 offer to settle for less than the amount ultimately awarded.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to enhanced costs and awarded $64,280.09, representing a reasonable increase over the original partial indemnity award.

The applicant, who self-identified as Hispanic/Latina, alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin after the respondent employer implemented a rule requiring employees to speak only French in the workplace, including during unpaid breaks.

The respondent operated a care home for elderly francophone nuns.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that language is not a protected ground under the Code, and the applicant failed to establish that the rule was used as a proxy for discrimination based on ethnic origin.

Most of the allegations were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, except for the allegation that the applicant was required to leave the premises to make telephone calls to her family, which was allowed to proceed to a full hearing.

The defendant foreign state moved to set aside a default judgment of approximately $250,000 arising from a wrongful dismissal claim by a long-term embassy employee.

The court applied the four‑part test for setting aside default judgments: promptness in bringing the motion, explanation for the default, existence of an arguable defence, and overall interests of justice.

Although the court found the defendant did not move promptly and provided a weak explanation for multiple administrative failures in handling the claim, it concluded there was an arguable defence concerning the length of the notice period, deduction of disability benefits, possible frustration of contract due to disability, and human rights damages.

Balancing the factors, the court held that justice favoured permitting the defence to be advanced.

The default judgment was set aside on strict terms, including payment of costs and payment of the judgment amount into court.

The applicant, a nursing student, alleged that her college and clinical instructor discriminated against her on the basis of sex (pregnancy) by pressuring her to withdraw from her clinical placement and treating her unfairly, which ultimately led her to abandon the program.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility and preferred the evidence of the respondent.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not treated differently from other students and that her pregnancy was not a factor in her treatment or her failing grade, which was instead the result of poor academic and clinical performance.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned without considering its merits.

La requérante a demandé l'ajournement de son audience prévue les 24, 25 et 26 avril 2013 en raison d'un conflit avec ses examens de fin d'année au collège.

Bien qu'elle n'ait pas fourni toutes les informations demandées par le Tribunal dans une décision provisoire antérieure, elle a soumis une lettre confirmant ses dates d'examen les 23, 24 et 25 avril.

Le Tribunal a conclu qu'il s'agissait de circonstances exceptionnelles justifiant un ajournement partiel pour éviter de forcer la requérante à choisir entre ses études et sa requête.

L'ajournement a été accordé pour les 24 et 25 avril, l'audience devant commencer le 26 avril.

The applicant, a temporary agency worker, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin after her two-week contract with the organizational respondent was terminated after less than one day.

The applicant, who self-identifies as European and speaks with an accent, claimed she was treated dismissively and terminated for discriminatory reasons.

The Tribunal found that the respondents provided a complete, non-discriminatory explanation for the termination, specifically that the applicant was argumentative and confrontational with staff regarding assigned tasks.

The application was dismissed as there was no evidence to support the allegation of discrimination.

The union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that it was not bound by a collective agreement with the union, as it had never been certified nor signed a voluntary recognition agreement.

The Board found that the employer, through its actions and inactions, had conferred apparent authority on the Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association (ORAC) to bargain on its behalf.

Consequently, the employer was bound by the collective agreements negotiated by ORAC, and the grievance was arbitrable.